[iltos]

i got an email this morning from www.freepress.net.....fyi, i think its widely acknowledged as a liberal watchdog organization

the email is about this

109TH CONGRESS
1ST SESSION H. R. 2726
To prohibit municipal governments from offering telecommunications, information, or cable services except to remedy market failures by private
enterprise to provide such services.
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
MAY 26, 2005
Mr. SESSIONS introduced the following bill; which was referred to the
Committee on Energy and Commerce

A BILL
To prohibit municipal governments from offering telecommunications,
information, or cable services except to remedy market failures by private enterprise to provide such services.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled.
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Preserving Innovation in Telecom Act of 2005’’.
•HR 2726 IH
SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON MUNICIPAL SERVICES. (a) AMENDMENT.—Section 253 of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 253) is amended by adding at the end the following new subsection:‘‘(g) PROVISION OF SERVICES BY STATE AND LOCAL 5
GOVERNMENTS AND THEIR AFFILIATES‘‘(1) PROHIBITION.—Effective 60 days after thedate of enactment of the Preserving Innovation in Telecom Act of 2005, neither any State or local government, nor any entity affiliated with such a government, shall provide any telecommunications, telecommunications service, information service, or cable service in any geographic area within the jurisdiction of such government in which a corporation or other private entity that is not affiliated with any State or local government is offering a substantially similar service. ‘‘(2) GRANDFATHER PROVISION.—Paragraph (1) shall not prohibit a State or local government or affiliated entity thereof from providing in any geographic area within the jurisdiction of such government any service that such government or entity was providing on the date of enactment of the Preserving Innovation in Telecom Act of 2005.’’. •HR 2726 IH
(b) CONFORMING AMENDMENT.—Subsection (f) of section 621 of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 541(f)) is repealed.

The author of this bill is a former telecom executive, which may or may not be significant

Among other things, it seems to be prohibiting any local municipality from providing internet service to its citizenry...its "short title" suggesting that to do so would limit innovation....

why are the feds getting into the business of the states and cities about this?

[Ciberblade]

The government wants to control as much as possible....and broadband is very popular right now. It would be no different than an attempt to take over the phone companies.

[Wino]

Originally Posted by iltos

i got an email this morning from www.freepress.net.....fyi, i think its widely acknowledged as a liberal watchdog organization

the email is about this


The author of this bill is a former telecom executive, which may or may not be significant

Among other things, it seems to be prohibiting any local municipality from providing internet service to its citizenry...its "short title" suggesting that to do so would limit innovation....

why are the feds getting into the business of the states and cities about this?

1) Because of money from pacs; 2) cause they don't give a damn about the citizens.

Our city own utility (electric/gas) has installed fiber optics throughout the city, primarily to eventually do away with meter readers. They do have the capability to offer phone, television and high speed internet.........but never will. Time Warner has the cable system tied up, although we have an upstart company, Grande, that is now trying to compete, but failing miserably and the Headquarters for SBC (Bell telephone) are located here. The city could wire everyone to high speed internet service for $10 a month and make millions (our city government takes 14% off the top of all revenues from the utility company)...........the bill you refer to will not allow this, and even if not made into law, in our case, would still be just a dream for local citizens as our local politicians are just as corrupt as those of the state and federal...........none of which gives a flip for the average citizen.

[iltos]

Originally Posted by Ciberblade

The government wants to control as much as possible....and broadband is very popular right now. It would be no different than an attempt to take over the phone companies.

i can imagine an arguement that a "public" service would somehow stifle competition among the cable companies...and, by extension, curtail innovation......

but my take on this is closer to yours....it seems like a bill "before the fact", if you will, that ensures the cable companies a continued market by limiting any competition

[GoneForNow]

Originally Posted by Ciberblade

The government wants to control as much as possible....and broadband is very popular right now. It would be no different than an attempt to take over the phone companies.

Originally Posted by iltos

i can imagine an arguement that a "public" service would somehow stifle competition among the cable companies...and, by extension, curtail innovation......

but my take on this is closer to yours....it seems like a bill "before the fact", if you will, that ensures the cable companies a continued market by limiting any competition

It's not "before the fact" its after. Philadelphia was going to provide wireless access from one end of the city to the other for nothing...zip......zero.....as in free. Verizon which built the infrastructure went nuts (understandably) because the City was going to regulate Verizon's broadband services as if it was a "utility" company such as water and sewer. There is no federal regulation for providing "broadband" unlike telephone and other forms of communications. Verizon and other providers believe that having spent the money to build the system and having to compete with other providers (meaning cable) would put them at a big disadvantage and would not allow them to make the return on investment that was expected. As it is Verizon and the other Bell companies must provide access to their system for competing DSL service providers.

[Mulderator]

Originally Posted by Wino

1) Because of money from pacs; 2) cause they don't give a damn about the citizens.

Our city own utility (electric/gas) has installed fiber optics throughout the city, primarily to eventually do away with meter readers. They do have the capability to offer phone, television and high speed internet.........but never will. Time Warner has the cable system tied up, although we have an upstart company, Grande, that is now trying to compete, but failing miserably and the Headquarters for SBC (Bell telephone) are located here. The city could wire everyone to high speed internet service for $10 a month and make millions (our city government takes 14% off the top of all revenues from the utility company)...........the bill you refer to will not allow this, and even if not made into law, in our case, would still be just a dream for local citizens as our local politicians are just as corrupt as those of the state and federal...........none of which gives a flip for the average citizen.

Wino, sometimes its just better to keep your mouth shut and not let people see how truly uninformed you are.

Iltos, my suggestion is to Google the Telecommunications Act of 1996 and you'll have a lot better understanding here and why what you want to debate is really not debatable.

The purpose of the act was to increase competition and reduce rates. It had bi-partisan support and it was long overdue replacing the prior 1934 legislation. Except for a few crackpots like DN who think that the government should regulate and control everything, this had overwhelming bi-partisan support. If there is a debate, the only debate is should government be providing telecommunications services or private industry--once you decide private industry (which is a no-brainer), you cannot thereafter mix and match the two.

You can imagine the inherent conflict of interest in a local municipality passing ordinances regarding service. Second, and more importantly, they are not a "for profit" entity so they can't possibly act as such. When a Cable operator is inefficient, it goes out of business. When a municipality is inefficient, it gets subsidized by taxpayers--i.e., it can never be forced out of business due to competition! On the flip side, the municipality can artificially lower its prices to drive business out of business because it can exist indefinitely on taxpayer subsidy. In short, it is just ridiculous to have municipalities compete with businesses. This is why the legislation wisely prohibits them from doing so.

Again, this is no brainer stuff.

[linskyjack]

I think the key to this bill is the part about localities where there is no broadband service---it doesn't say you can't get the government envolved there. My issue with these capital intensive industries, is that like every thing else, in a mature capitalist economy, within a couple of years there will be no competition.

[Mulderator]

Originally Posted by linskyjack

I think the key to this bill is the part about localities where there is no broadband service---it doesn't say you can't get the government envolved there. My issue with these capital intensive industries, is that like every thing else, in a mature capitalist economy, within a couple of years there will be no competition.

Are you smoking crack? 10 years ago, the only choice I had for cable and broadband was my cable company. Today I have numerous choices for television and hundreds of choices for broadband. I pay less today from my broadband than when I first got it. I had it before most other people did and it was very expensive initially.

In fact, New York where you live has been touted as the model for broadband access because there are so many choices.

[GoneForNow]

Originally Posted by linskyjack

My issue with these capital intensive industries, is that like every thing else, in a mature capitalist economy, within a couple of years there will be no competition.

Really? Tell that to every Baby Bell that has to open its system for every Tom, Dick and Harry local yokel who wants to sell DSL service.

[linskyjack]

Yeah, but 10 years ago, DSL and Cable were in their infancy--now they are mature---Within 10 years everything will be fiber optics (shot those cable company stocks) and the major players there will be the phone companies. As far as NY goes--you have essentially two choices--the phone company or the cable company (a virtual local monopoly)

[Mulderator]

Originally Posted by linskyjack

Yeah, but 10 years ago, DSL and Cable were in their infancy--now they are mature---Within 10 years everything will be fiber optics (shot those cable company stocks) and the major players there will be the phone companies. As far as NY goes--you have essentially two choices--the phone company or the cable company (a virtual local monopoly)

You really are smoking crack. Do you honestly contend that you have only two choices for broadband service? Now think about this Linksy--just because you have only one phone line coming into your house, does that mean you have only one choice for telephone service: "The phone company?" Honestly, I can't believe you just made that statement.

[linskyjack]

Originally Posted by gbrumb

Really? Tell that to every Baby Bell that has to open its system for every Tom, Dick and Harry local yokel who wants to sell DSL service.

Well tell me how those Baby Bells were the beneficiaries of government largesse in the form of tax breaks etc. Also tell me how they made life miserable for the startups who wanted to access lines etc. By the way, do you have any idea how many alternative suppliers of broadband services have gone out of business in the last 5 years? In ten years, you will have one choice--and they will set the price accordingly. Just don't come back and ***** and moan in here.

[Mulderator]

Originally Posted by linskyjack

Well tell me how those Baby Bells were the beneficiaries of government largesse in the form of tax breaks etc. Also tell me how they made life miserable for the startups who wanted to access lines etc. By the way, do you have any idea how many alternative suppliers of broadband services have gone out of business in the last 5 years? In ten years, you will have one choice--and they will set the price accordingly. Just don't come back and ***** and moan in here.

And no doubt you said the exact same thing about telephone when that was de-regulated.

What is your suggestion Linsky? Are you saying that you think we should have the government provide us television, telephone, and internet services? Is that your recommendation?

[alex_holker]

Originally Posted by Mulder

And no doubt you said the exact same thing about telephone when that was de-regulated.

What is your suggestion Linsky? Are you saying that you think we should have the government provide us television, telephone, and internet services? Is that your recommendation?

For television, regulation is required (as is the case for all wireless communication), but there is a great deal of variation in 'product' (the TV shows produced). As such, a monopoly isn't really suitable.

For services like telephone, internet, water and electricity, you have very few variables between different providers (cost, reliability and for internet, speed). For such services, having many providers isn't neccessarily of benefit, if the increase in total startup costs caused by the number of suppliers is greater than the benefit from competition.

Alex

[linskyjack]

Not a good question Mulder---all the industries you mentioned have been regulated, and continue to be regulated, despite all efforts of the Bush adminsitration to end this practice. By the way, I want regulation of industries that are part of the basic utlitity infra-structure in this country. Those services are two important to be left to the devices of the profiteers and quick fix artists of the corporate world.